IETF DataTracker: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
This version makes two minor changes. Firstly, as discussed at IETF 94,
in Section 4.5, clarify that support for sending RTP and RTCP using two
separate transport layer flows is OPTIONAL. Secondly, change RTP Packet
Stream to RTP Stream throughout, to align terminology with RFC 7656.
Numerous minor fixes and clarifications to address the
security directorate review and area director review
Spencer Dawkins and
Minor clarifications to address IETF Area Director review comments.
Section 7.2 is updated to mandate RTCP implementation by all endpoints
that wish to interwork with WebRTC devices, since it is needed for
congestion control purposes.
This version updates Section 6.2 to refer to
This version makes a number of changes to address comments made at
the IETF 91 meeting in Honolulu:
This version updates the discussion RTP retransmission to require
receivers to implement support for RTP retransmission sent using
SSRC multiplexing, while making support for session multiplexing
This version clarifies that both session- and SSRC-multiplexing need
to be supported for the RTP retransmission payload format.
This version attempts to align the terminology with the most recent version
the rtcweb-overview draft.
In Section 4.1 change "RTCP is a fundamental and integral part
of RTP, and MUST be implemented in all WebRTC applications" to
"...MUST be implemented and used...".
This is a minor updated, based on discussion at IETF 90, that adds
a reminder about discontinuous transmission to Section 4.1, and
makes a clarification about use of multiple RTCP CNAMEs in Section
This version updates the draft to reflect comments received at the
joint IETF/W3C WebRTC interim meeting held in Washington DC in May
2014. The changes are as follows:
This version is intended to address working group last call comments.
The changes are summarised in a presentation on
WebRTC: RTP Usage WG Last Call Comments that Magnus Westerlund
will give at the IETF/W3C WebRTC interim meeting in May 2014.
Changes in this version of the draft include:
This version of the draft makes the following changes:
The -11 version of this draft addresses the outcomes of the
discussions at IETF 88 in Vancouver. The changes are:
The -10 version of thus draft was submitted just prior to the cut-off
for discussion at IETF 88. The main changes in this version are as
This version just updates the references, to catch-up with recently
The changes in this version are as follows:
The changes in this version of the draft are as follows:
This version attempts to reflect the outcomes of the
IETF RTCWeb working group interim meeting that was held in Kista
on 12-13 June 2012. This is a major update to the draft, touching
almost every section of the text. The changes are too numerous to
describe in detail, but a
complete diff from the previous version is available. After the
extensive discussion in the interim meeting, we are not planning to
present this draft in the IETF 84 meeting in Vancouver; discussion
should take place on the
IETF RTCWeb working group's mailing list instead. If there are
still unresolved issues, we will discuss the draft further at IETF
85 in Atlanta in November 2012.
This version of the draft is submitted for discussion at the IETF
RTCWeb working group's interim meeting in Kista on 12-13 June 2012.
This new version includes a greatly expanded discussion of RTP
topologies, some more concrete recommendations on use of the core RTP
protocol, and various other clarifications throughout. This is still
work in progress, and will likely evolve significantly after the
discussion at the interim meeting.
We've just posted an update to our draft on the use of RTP in the
RTCWeb context. This is a minor update, consisting almost entirely
of editorial clean-ups. The only technical changes are to make
RFC 6222 support REQUIRED rather than RECOMMENDED, and to replace
the discussion of congestion control requirements with references to
Randell Jesup's draft on
Congestion Control Requirements For Real Time Media,
and my new draft on
RTP Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast Sessions.
We've updated our draft on RTP Requirements for RTC-Web, and renamed
it to better reflect the content. Changes in this version include:
This draft was accepted as a working group draft after the RTCWeb
interim meeting. This version updates the draft filename and date
to reflect that, but makes no other changes.
This draft replaces